Why do so many atheist accuse Christians of being "cherry pickers"? Can't you see how illogical that is?

Question

I am always amazed at how atheists cannot see the glaring illogic in their own statements. Accusing Christians who do not believe in a literal word-for-word view of the Bible as being "cherry pickers" is one of them. In what way shape or form can an atheist tell ANYONE how they MUST read and interpret the Bible? Totally illogical!!!

Secondly, I guess the fact that by accusing people of being "cherry pickers" is in actuality an acknowledgment that there are in fact cherries to pick... that there are in fact a great number of truths to be found in the Bible even by those who do not interpret it literally. Where is the fabled but seldom seen atheistic "logic" when it comes to that?

Answer 1

no they can't see

Answer 2

The complaint is more that when a Christian takes some elements of the Bible literally and interprets others as metaphor or dismisses them entirely, there often doesn't appear to be any coherent methodology for determining which are the literal parts and which aren't. It just comes across looking really arbitrary, like the Christian is just taking the bits they like and ignoring the rest. That makes it awfully hard to imagine that there are any meaningful "truths" in the Bible or in the religion.



And regarding the "cherries"? The problem is, it's incredibly subjective, and different Christians have very different ideas about what the "cherries" are. Some Christians see the "help the poor and needy" parts of the Bible as a cherry, and ignore the "homosexuality is dirty and evil" parts, while other Christians do exactly the opposite. We're simply pointing out the inconsistency. How is that anything but logical?



@Your response to me: What you're describing sounds more like a Rorschach blot than a text containing universal truths. You read a story, and you saw meaning and insight in it. Plenty of stories can inspire insight in the reader, if the reader goes into them with the right frame of mind; that's not unique to the Bible, or to holy scriptures more generally. The sort of "meaning" you're describing can be found in a deck of Tarot cards, or a book of children's fairy-tales, or the marginal scribblings of a bored high-schooler in math class. Unless you mean to put the Bible on the same level as pretty much every other book that's ever been published, I suggest you revisit your standards of "truth" and "meaning."

Answer 3

"In what way shape or form can an atheist tell ANYONE how they MUST read and interpret the Bible?"



Because they can think. You should give it a try before engaging in a tirade like this. You know damn well that Christians, when comparing one denomination another, are inconsistent regarding which parts of the bible are literally true and which aren't. If an atheist pointing out that fact makes you uncomfortable it's only because you don't have a response. Attempts to dismiss the observation out of hand don't make the observation less valid. Perhaps 'cherry picking' is not the best term to use. How about 'selective ambiguity'? Many Christians are selectively ambiguous about which parts of the bible are literally true and which are not. That ambiguity usually is most pronounced when they are confronted with a question about a specific event in the bible for which they don't have an answer.



By the way. Are the 'truths' found in the bible there because the bible is the word of God, or because the authors of the bible simply were insightful when it came to human nature?

Answer 4

The idea is that Christians state a certain part of the bible is true. They do not claim it is metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, etc. They claim it is literally true. Take a look at this before you continue reading:



http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htm



Anwyay, a Christian will claim something like "God hates homosexuality because it says so in Leviticus." In this case, the Christian is not looking at metaphors; they are being literal! At this point, it is fair to ask the Christian if they also believe if people should be executed for homosexual. The Christian will most likely answer 'no', but they would be ignoring the part in Leviticus that says they must be executed. In fact, it is the very next sentence after the abomination part!



Also, homosexuals are executed in Iran, where they do not cherry-pick their religious beliefs. As such, it is fair to accuse Christians as being cherry-pickers, because they pick and choose which parts are literal, which are literal, and which parts they ignore completely.



By the way, an atheist can tell you how to interpret the bible. All I have to do is consult a scholarly resource on the various methods of bible interpretation. As I already pointed out, "hermeneutics" is a valid field of study. You might wish to look into it.

Answer 5

We make the statement because it's true. One can't get through Genesis 1 & 2 without contradictions. Which do you believe? The illogical behavior is yours and your fellow Christians. Everyone the claims a belief in the Bible as the word of God has to decide what parts to believe and what not to believe. Your denial of this is pathetic. In no way am I telling you what to believe, how you read the Bible or interpret it.



You lack logic and truth. Fail.

Answer 6

You have a strange view of logic. Cherry picking means taking certain bits of your holy book and ignoring others. When this comes to bible and believers completely ignore the 3/4 of it advocating genocide, torture, rape, slavery, racism, sexism and the murder of gays and non-believers and instead pick out the bits about loving thy neighbour - it is quite logical to contradict any christian claiming that their religion is one of peace and love and the bible is the source of their morality.



No atheist says that Christians cherry pick truth - just the palatable, sterilised bits of the bible which suit them.





Edit - if you are using the bible to form your own personal philosophy of life then you are quite correct - no-one has the right to tell you which bits of it you should adopt. We all pick little bits of other's beliefs and values to form our own value system. I would not consider a Christian like that someone who was deluding himself. However, the vast majority of Christians do not use the bible in this way - they use it as evidence of there being a God and as containing commandments within it by which they live their life. It really is not a few Christians who do this.



Let me clarify - The only Christians who cherry-pick the bible are the ones who hold some of it as true - e.g that there is a god and that Jesus was the son of that God, that we should follow the ten commandments and love each other and not judge each other BUT ignore the bits about slavery and having sex with children and killing women who had been raped but not screamed loudly enough and the fact that Jesus said to kill all who did not follow him and children born out of wedlock. Those are the ones who cherry pick and believe me, that is the majority.

Answer 7

But I thought the bible was the word of god... Geez, how stupid of me to misunderstand. So is the bible the word of god or not? If not, then it's just another antiquated book of folklore that true-believers use to compose trite aphorisms and the cherry picking debate is totally irrelevant. If it is the word of god, prove it to be, otherwise it's just another antiquated collection of folktales that true-believers use to compose trite aphorisms.



For me, cherry picking isn't the question because the source remains unchallenged.



On edit: Your @ responses make me smile. The desperation in your words as you attempt to deal with the dissonance between the implications of literal vs. interpretive arguments has cornered you. So is the bible the word of god or is it not? If so, prove it. If not, why invest so much time and energy into something that is clearly just antiquated literature different only from the Eddas or Vedas in its cultural/linguistic context?



On your response to me: Again, you have great difficulty taking a position. If the bible is not the literal word of god, then you are admitting that there is no basis upon which to make the claims that religion requires to make itself relevant. If it is not the literal word of god, then it should not be given social accommodation of any consequence greater than the works of Nietzsche or Hume or Socrates (in fact, it's self-contradicting elements places it on a level far beneath any of those listed here). If you cannot say with authority and proof that the bible is the word of god, then the book and its ideas are automatically dispensed to the tired old works of history department relevant only in its aid in helping us understand the motivations of ancient people.

Answer 8

Well,unfortunately the term, "context" or phrase,"contextually accurate,biblical interpretation" has been so over-played,that they've become synonymous with,"blatant avoidance of difficult texts" and "cherry picking,cop-out answers",by a number of folks outside of Christendom...But regardless,the need for Contextual accuracy,in understanding any religious text or even secular publication,can not be overstated(certainly Not on this forum)...

Answer 9

The fact that a book has SOME true statements doesn't mean every statement in it is true.



I don't know the context of the discussion you're referring to, and I don't recall using that expression myself. But it is wildly illogical for someone who believes in impossible and imaginary beings to accuse other people of being illogical.



Seldom seen atheist logic? I guess you just can't tell logic or reason from bat-sh*t craziness.



No, what ONE person said is NOT an example of what ALL atheists say. Again, you have no grasp of logic.

Answer 10

How can a Christian tell anyone how they should read the Bible? Why not just read it all, including the parts you obviously don't like? Why is it literal when it condemns homosexuality or something else you personally don't like, but when it says to stone unruly children to death or to sell everything you own and give the money to the poor, it needs to be interpreted? I call shenanigans.

Answer 11

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-A** Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

Answer 12

If the bible does not say it why would you believe it?



IF you believe it is GOd own written word, take it as it is. The bible never says for you to interrupted it. Read your BIBLE, obey every scripture.

Answer 13

Oh come off it.



Walk up to a Christian and ask for his coat. Learn how sincere he is about his Bible.



If he is sincere make sure to leave him his keys and wallet before you donate his coat to one of the homeless.

Answer 14

No - it is Christians who "tell ANYONE how they MUST read and interpret the Bible."



Why do you think they call them "preachers?"



Maybe instead of "cherry pickers" you would prefer "liars."

Answer 15

Well of course its illogical because you want it to be, right?



Too much hyperbole in this Q. You are overcompensating for your lack of blind faith with more aggressive anti-atheist. All too typical.



"acknowledgment that there are in fact cherries to pick.." pathetic attempt to reaffirm bias.



Well done, theist (smiles).

Answer 16

Cherry Picking: Thou shalt not kill

Cherry Picking: don't work on the Sabbath

Cherry Picking: stone disobedient kids and atheists



I could go on...

Answer 17

Because they are. You are a prime example. Yes, there are a few bits of "truth"in your comic book, but they are vastly outweighed by the lies and outright faerie tales contained therein.



ADDENDUM



My! Who pissed in your Cheerios, Junior? Why don't you simply pick the little O's out from the bile the same way you pick the few bits of "truth" out of your book of lies?

Answer 18

Hey, the literal translation of the bible was good enough for Jesus, so are you saying you're better than your own god?

Answer 19

What you fail to understand is that a great many atheists WERE once christian! We DO know the bible and we DO know when christians pick and choose which parts of the rules they will follow.

Answer 20

Because the Bible is either true or its NOT. Either you believe it or you don't.



If you can find reason NOT to believe certain parts, then what reason is there to believe ANY of it? And vica versa.

Answer 21

Given that Catholics do what you are talking about, this is simply the instance of pot meeting kettle.

Answer 22

How do you know that Genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally?

Answer 23

Flawed logic is flawed

Answer 24

So....you are admitting that the Bible is mostly BS???? Because that seems to be your point here.

Answer 25

As a christian, - I believe in cherry-picking.



We pick those elements of the O.T. that align with the N.T. And relegate the other laws and commandments to the O.T. law imposed upon the Israelites. Those laws are either of a dietary nature or a societal nature.

Answer 26

What?

Answer 27

No